[meteorite-list] I'm getting confused by the MB coordinates

From: MexicoDoug <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat Aug 26 10:34:18 2006
Message-ID: <005e01c6c91c$a3c064c0$57cf5ec8_at_0019110394>

>From what I understand the MB editorial staff is very pleased to update find
/ fall spots (though none of the 100 I like have ever been updated). Names,
though, that's another story. There is a very good reason here to leave
names alone that the NomCom recognizes. If people search the literature and
the name changes, it gets to be a mess for research. In a single case that
may not appear to be a big deal, but get 10,000 meteorites and some with 50
spelling variations (probably exist a few this bad), and suddenly no one
know what meteorite is what. So, once the name is baptized - it stays that
way forever, no exceptions - NomCom policy. There are so many reasons. What
if a town disappears through time and a new one springs up ... changes their
name ... That is why there are so many names to reflect older spellings or
just simple errors 25 or 100 years ago (before NomCom, ie in the dark
Meteoritic ages, it was frequently very difficult to check a name and not
many people cared - like you say, what's in a name. People just made errors
or plain didn't know the spelling or guessed at locations.

The meteorite Santiago Papasquiero is my favorite example of names but just
another one in the replete errors and omissions that have evolved by no real
fault of anyone. It was spelled "wrong" I mused.. So the meteorite
spelling accepted "quiero" would translate to "Santiago I love Potatoes".
not Santiago papasquiaro which is more like "San Diego - Doorway to the
Valley of Clean Rain".

Good luck on the coordinates. Go with the names when in doubt. The cases
for misrepresented coordinates on purpose are not as bad as the honest
errors and estimates of the past which you have found. It does complicate
the life of people who want to look up the coordinates on the internet and
waltz out there with meteorites. The older coordinates ones were eyeballed
in many cases in good faith from maps where people simply didn't have a good
grid overlaid and there is even an example of wrong state or wrong country I
seem to recall. Like this happened the free map zoomed out scale of the
state from Sinclair Oil Company. In many cases you'd think it really isn't
very important to science if science isn't needing more samples and
especially if the meteorite was transported to where it was found by natural
or human forces. (In an Indian mound, etc.) And not to forget, many finds
simply were : in those hills. The person reporting doesn't necessarily know
where it was found, and does their best. For a rock no one cared about
found 30 years ago by so-and-so's dead grandpa, : Oh - he found it there
yonder in those hills. "You mean Mt. X, right?" "Well, I think so." Or
maybe it was that one on the horizon..."

If you ever finish with that very kind pursuit, you deserve great congrats.
You can help me battle a few windmills that are giving me problems
afterwards if you don't mind :-),

Best wishes, Doug


----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter L. Newton" <newtonw2_at_comcast.net>
To: "'MexicoDoug'" <MexicoDoug_at_aim.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] I'm getting confused by the MB coordinates


> Back again
>
> Ok... I did a little self searching on this topic of map datum used for
lat.
>
> and long. on MB entries.
>
> There are different sets of map datum that have been use (and some still
> being used) to locate the "zero point" on a map (or the whole planet),
from
> which the measurements are made from.
>
> Google Earth places item on it's maps using WGS-84 (World Geodetic System
> 1984) datum.
>
> All older US government topological maps used NAD27 (North American Datum
> 1927) based on a zero point at Meades Ranch in Kansas. Use of this datum
is
> being replaced by NAD83 datum.
>
> I found a online map datum converter calculator at...
>
> http://jeeep.com/details/coord/
>
> ... and used it to convert the MB coordinates for the Russell Gulch
Colorado
>
> 1863 find and the Apex Colorado 1938 find, to see if the MB coordinates
from
>
> that time were using the NAD27 datum point.
>
> Well, that only placed the find spots 200 meters closer (south) to the
> actual find spots.
>
> So, that's not my answer. The answer is the MB coordinates may not reflect
> the actual find spot in all cases.
>
> Now, I understand that the MB folks are busy and cannot personally go out
> and check every find spot in their database. And the information given to
> them is sometimes over a 100 years old (as in the case of Russell Gulch
> 1863).
>
> But some of us meteorite collectors can. In the case of the Apex Colorado
> find, I don't even have to go anywhere (even though the real find spot is
> only 4 miles from me). All I had to do was read the narrative that came
with
>
> the MB listing, realize that the narrative names verifiable places as the
> find spot, and in my case, verify the information by talking to Jack
Murphy,
>
> ex-curator of the Denver Museum of Natural History (now known as Denver
> Museum of Nature and Science).
>
> And in the case of the Russell Gulch find, as I mentioned in my last post,
> my girlfriend, who lives in Russel Gulch, is going to put me in contact
with
>
> a "old timer" who has information on the actual find spot. So I may be
able
> to place this meteorite closer to the actual find spot.
>
> This may sound like a trivial pursuit (that would make a good name for a
> game), but I know if I wanted to hunt a old find spot for possible new
> finds, I would like to be a bit closer than 4 miles from the find.
>
> I don't know if the MB folks would want to start dealing with changes like
> this, but I think it's something to consider.
>
> This is a science, and I would think that we would want our data to be as
> accurate as possible.
>
> Walter L. Newton
> Golden, Co
>
> P.S: Russell Gulch should be spelt with ONE "L." It seems somewhere in
time
> the double "L" spelling became the norm, but I guess spelling is not a
> science.
>
> Walter L. Newton
> 1400 Utah Street #101
> Golden, Co 80401
>
> Home 303-279-3046
> Cell 303-906-9653
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MexicoDoug [mailto:MexicoDoug_at_aim.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:31 AM
> To: Walter L. Newton
> Cc: Meteorite Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] I'm getting confused by the MB coordinates
>
> Walter:
>
> Please don't shoot the messenger. But as hard as the Met Bulletin
editorial
> staff work, no one goes looking over the shoulders of most finders; the
> greed of human nature combined especially in the older cases with the
> trouble of interpolating coordinates (no GPS) from a topo map by many
> finders, grabbing the nearest 10' or 15', etc., etc. , etc. etc. add up to
> the exception frequently being the correct coordinate. Bad but that's
life.
> 4 miles is pretty good. I am used to dealing with lots more than that as
> I'm sure plenty of others are here, too.I bet even the Tucson Ring has
> coordinates...
>
> Read "Rocks from Space" again, the Bob Haag section. I know Richard
Norton
> makes a relevant comment in there somewhere about the accuracy of
published
> coordinates when Bob started hunting. The accurate falls tend to be the
> ones with large strewn fields, if that makes sense...
>
> Best wishes, Doug
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Walter L. Newton" <newtonw2_at_comcast.net>
> To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 1:34 AM
> Subject: [meteorite-list] I'm getting confused by the MB coordinates
>
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Some of you may have remember being bored by my running dialog with the
MB
> > and Jeff in reference to the actual find spot of a Colorado meteorite.
> >
> > In the MB, the Apex Colorado meteorite has coordinates that puts the
find
> > (1938) at about 4 miles north of the actual location. I know the actual
> > location because of the narrative in the MB, and Jack Murphy concurs. He
> > knows where it was found and it's not where the MB coordinates have it.
> >
> > Now... a have a new girlfriend (yes, this is really going somewhere) and
> > Steffanie lives in Russell Gulch Colorado, which is an old mining town
> south
> > and above Central City Colorado. It's listed as a ghost town even though
> it
> > has about 35 folks living there.
> >
> > Well, looking at the MB list of Colorado meteorites, low and behold, we
> have
> > a Russell Gulch meteorite, an iron, found in 1863.
> >
> > But, if you check the coordinates with Google Earth, the find spot would
> be
> > right in Central City Colorado... about 4 miles north of Russell Gulch.
> >
> > Do we see a pattern here. Steff is going to hook me up with an old timer
> > that lives in Russell Gulch, who knows about the find and has a good
idea
> > where it was found.
> >
> > My question is (I promised this was going somewhere)... was some of the
> > coordinates in the MB constructed from a different map datum. I vaguely
> > remember something about different datum sets used for lat. and long. I
> > don't really understand the details about this, but I know my simple GPS
> > unit has a whole list of datum sets that I can set my unit to.
> >
> > Are the MB coordinates really right, but using a different "starting
> point"
> > then Google Earth.
> >
> > Otherwise, I guess I'm going to go off on another tangent with the MB
> about
> > another find spot.
> >
> > Maybe someone can point me to an online article that explains all this?
> >
> > I know this is not as earth shattering as losing a whole planet, but it
> bugs
> > me none the less.
> >
> > Stop me before it's too late. (did this make any sense?)
> >
> > Walter L. Newton
> > Golden, Co
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
> >
>
>
Received on Sat 26 Aug 2006 10:33:44 AM PDT


Help support this free mailing list:



StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
reddit
Yahoo MyWeb